Caoimhín P. Connell vs. Sharon Kramer Slugfest?

[MrsKramer]

1. "What mold-produced compounds are toxic to humans via inhalation? I don't need to know all of them, just a few. Preferably those that are common place."

Commonly found in WDB, the following are known to be or produce toxins: mycotoxins, endotoxins, beta-glucans and certain proteins

2."What are the inhalation LD50 values for these compounds?"

I don't know. Nor, as I understand it, is that a relevant question when determining causation of illness or lack there of, from WDB. This is because people are exposed to multiple contaminants simultaneously that are individually known to have the capability to cause a chronic inflammatory responses (CIR) - sometimes referred to as a "toxic" response. (what constitutes the term "toxic" seems to mean different things to different researchers)

Additionally, in WDB people are not just exposed via inhalation. They are exposed via inhalation, ingestion and dermal contact. (I would cite a paper here, but I am afraid you will yell at me!)

3. "What are the concentrations of these compounds that are typically found in houses that have mold problems? Not houses that are seething pits of mold, just your average clean-looking house that happens to have, say, a leaking icemaker connection and some mold growing on the floor and wall below it."

I don't know that there is a concrete answer to that question. As I understand it, that can vary by area of the country, time of year, etc. I think what you may be asking me is what is the permissible exposure limit (PEL) for these compounds in the air and at what point is it limit breached when some mold, but not alot, is in a house.

If that is what you are asking me, I don't know the answer. Like I said, I am not a scientist.

As I stated before, I don't know the infant mortality rate. I only know that infants have died from exposure to aspergillus. I linked a paper for you to read that stated this. I don't think it is common, but it has happened.

So is there anything else you feel I did not answer honestly to the best of my ability?

I try to cite to scientists when I answer these kinds of questions. LD50's, PELs, CIR are not really in my realm of expertise.

[MrsKramer]

"And yet, you seem to have a deep distrust of those very professionals when they say things that you disagree with."

No. The ONLY thing I have really spoken out of that has helped to reshape policy, is the scientific fact that you can't take a rat study, add some math, and then mass market into policy that it has been scientifically proven moldy buildings do not harm. Yet, that is EXACTLY what has happened over this issue. Like I said, I don't write about science. I write about mis-marketing of science.

As far as completed research papers, here is the most current accounting of which I am aware:

http://globalindoorhealthnetwork.com/research_a_f.html

http://globalindoorhealthnetwork.com/research_g_m.html

http://globalindoorhealthnetwork.com/research_n_z.html

I have to go now. You all enjoy the rest of your day.

[Jim Katen]

1. "What mold-produced compounds are toxic to humans via inhalation? I don't need to know all of them, just a few. Preferably those that are common place."

Commonly found in WDB, the following are known to be or produce toxins: mycotoxins, endotoxins, beta-glucans and certain proteins

That's not an answer to my question.

2."What are the inhalation LD50 values for these compounds?"

I don't know. Nor, as I understand it, is that a relevant question when determining causation of illness or lack there of, from WDB. This is because people are exposed to multiple contaminants simultaneously that are individually known to have the capability to cause a chronic inflammatory responses (CIR) - sometimes referred to as a "toxic" response. (what constitutes the term "toxic" seems to mean different things to different researchers)

Everything after "I don't know." is a not an answer, it's a deflection. If you are alleging that molds cause toxic reactions in humans, then it seems like a pretty damn relevant question to me.

Of course, there are multiple contaminants in water damaged buildings. We're talking about mold here. If you think that the danger levels for mold are not relevant to the discussion, then I'm not sure what is.

Additionally, in WDB people are not just exposed via inhalation. They are exposed via inhalation, ingestion and dermal contact. (I would cite a paper here, but I am afraid you will yell at me!)

There's no need to cite a paper because no one will disagree with you on this point. Unfortunatly, it's beside the point. I'm interested in the effects of exposure via inhalation. Citing a bunch of information about other exposure routes is deflection.

3. "What are the concentrations of these compounds that are typically found in houses that have mold problems? Not houses that are seething pits of mold, just your average clean-looking house that happens to have, say, a leaking icemaker connection and some mold growing on the floor and wall below it."

I don't know that there is a concrete answer to that question. As I understand it, that can vary by area of the country, time of year, etc. I think what you may be asking me is what is the permissible exposure limit (PEL) for these compounds in the air and at what point is it limit breached when some mold, but not alot, is in a house.

No, I'm not asking that. You've substituted my question for a different one.

If that is what you are asking me, I don't know the answer. Like I said, I am not a scientist.

You use that to excuse yourself from difficult to answer questions but you feel free to make allegations as if you *were* a scientist. You can't have it both ways.

As I stated before, I don't know the infant mortality rate. I only know that infants have died from exposure to aspergillus. I linked a paper for you to read that stated this. I don't think it is common, but it has happened.

Good flaming God in Heaven! Of course infants have died from aspergillus. *NO ONE* is arguing that. We're trying to learn what causes it. Not whether or not it's happened. We don't need links to stuff that we already know.

So is there anything else you feel I did not answer honestly to the best of my ability?

I try to cite to scientists when I answer these kinds of questions. LD50's, PELs, CIR are not really in my realm of expertise.

Clearly not. In fact, I'd say that anything having to do with the science relating to the health effects of mold is outside your area of expertise. Your expertise is spin. Not science.

[Jim Katen]

"And yet, you seem to have a deep distrust of those very professionals when they say things that you disagree with."

No. The ONLY thing I have really spoken out of that has helped to reshape policy, is the scientific fact that you can't take a rat study, add some math, and then mass market into policy that it has been scientifically proven moldy buildings do not harm. Yet, that is EXACTLY what has happened over this issue. Like I said, I don't write about science. I write about mis-marketing of science.

Let's see, "the only thing I have really spoken out of that has helped to reshape policy."

Given the enormous volume of your writing and online presence, that's not much of a boast.

As far as completed research papers, here is the most current accounting of which I am aware:

http://globalindoorhealthnetwork.com/research_a_f.html

http://globalindoorhealthnetwork.com/research_g_m.html

http://globalindoorhealthnetwork.com/research_n_z.html

I have to go now. You all enjoy the rest of your day.

And I was stupid enough to actually follow the links. They have abso-freakin-loutly nothing to do with our discussion.

[Jim Katen]

My turn to post links:

Here's an excellent overview of the issue and MrsKramer's role in it.

http://www.laweekly.com/content/printVersion/262723/

[Bain]

My turn to post links:

Here's an excellent overview of the issue and MrsKramer's role in it.

http://www.laweekly.com/content/printVersion/262723/

Verrry interesting. I had no clue.

I clicked on the link for Sharon's response, but just got rerouted to the home page. I typed her name in the search box, though, and found this:

http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2008 ... bel_su.php

[MrsKramer]

"And I was stupid enough to actually follow the links. They have abso-freakin-loutly nothing to do with our discussion."

Jim,

With all due respect, there are hundreds of papers within those links that are right on point of this discussion. Papers like the CDC's Respiratory Morbidity in Office Workers, and POA's Chronic Inflammatory Response Syndrome from Water Damaged Buildings, and MANY about building maintenance for better IAQ. Several about toxicity models - their worth and shortcomings.

I don't know what it is you want or why you made a statement of me way back several years ago that I "fight dirty". I don't even know you.

You asked for links to completed papers. I gave it. I'm sorry but you are going to have to read thru them on your own IF it is your intent to address an issue with an open mind.

Here is a challenge for you: Find one paper in those links that addresses the current accepted understanding of illness from WDB according to the IOM. If you can't find one, I will know you are just blowing smoke - not really trying to communicate.

If you just want to diss me for doing the best I can to answer your questions and provide information to you, then so be it. There is nothing I can do about that.

[Jim Katen]

"And I was stupid enough to actually follow the links. They have abso-freakin-loutly nothing to do with our discussion."

Jim,

With all due respect, there are hundreds of papers within those links that are right on point of this discussion. Papers like the CDC's Respiratory Morbidity in Office Workers, and POA's Chronic Inflammatory Response Syndrome from Water Damaged Buildings, and MANY about building maintenance for better IAQ. Several about toxicity models - their worth and shortcomings.

Well, there seem to be thousands of papers in your links. Citing a list of thousands of papers is not citing anything.

I don't know what it is you want or why you made a statement of me way back several years ago that I "fight dirty". I don't even know you.

The fighting dirty comment is about your wish that the children of others "rot in hell." Or, in your world view is that kind of thing not considered fighting dirty?

And let's not forget the libel thing. In some circles, libel is considered fighting dirty.

You asked for links to completed papers. I gave it. I'm sorry but you are going to have to read thru them on your own IF it is your intent to address an issue with an open mind.

That wasn't me. I never asked for links to completed papers.

Here is a challenge for you: Find one paper in those links that addresses the current accepted understanding of illness from WDB according to the IOM. If you can't find one, I will know you are just blowing smoke - not really trying to communicate.

Are you really stupid or are you trying to goad me? I have no doubt that people suffer illnesses related to water damaged buildings. Challenging me to sift through thousands of papers to find something I'm not interested in is a DEFLECTION. I'm the one who wants to know about a very specific thing: the toxic effects of inhaling the organic byproducts of mold. That's it. I've already sifted through piles of stuff and I haven't found it. I asked you if you had access to such a thing and you put up a whole freaking library that doesn't address my question. You DEFLECTED my question.

If you just want to diss me for doing the best I can to answer your questions and provide information to you, then so be it. There is nothing I can do about that.

Passive agressive crap.

[Bain]

Sharon, I wasn't aware of your impetus for becoming involved in the mold wars till Jim posted the LA Weekly story.

I'm not a scientist, either. What I want to know, and what others have been asking, is how much mold is too much, and what, if any, levels are considered acceptable? Property inspectors are exposed to all kinds of yuck--though we try to avoid direct contact-- like animal waste and raw sewage, just to name a couple, and to date they have no long-lasting effects except on Marc. That's a different story entirely, however. I HAVE been in maybe three houses that had mold in the crawlspaces and I suffered almost immediate symptoms. My eyes watered, my throat constricted, and I felt generally nauseated. But . . . I've also been in thousands of other houses that contained mold and there were no adverse--as far as I could detect--consequences whatever.

The most recent moldy house in which I felt ill, others in the place--meaning a realtor and two buyers--didn't suffer any symptoms at all. Of course, I had been there for several hours whereas the others were there for LESS than an hour. As some have suggested, maybe it was only MY system that was susceptible to whatever kind of mold was in the house.

Jim and Kurt are good guys, but they're also inquisitive. What we're all asking you in different ways is whether there is any objective data that definitively states that X amount of mold spores rocks your system, while another amount is tolerable? That's the most important question and, while your links are appreciated, I can't imagine anyone spending countless hours on a Sunday afternoon trying to locate something germane, and then digesting it and hoping it's understandable.

I could swallow a few drops of gasoline and not be affected at all. Downing a whole glass would produce a different result entirely. How much mold is akin to slurping down a glass of gasoline?

[kurt]

There isn't an answer to that question, which is why there's such confusion, and why it opens the door to the scammers and loons.

I've spent a good part of the day following links from MrsKramer, and it's pretty clear to me now that much more is not known, than known.

Everyone has mold allergies, me included. My response is to clean it up. Others are to sue folks to make millions.

All in all, I think it's been productive. MrsKramer has shown us her depth of knowledge (shallow) and her involvement in pushing what she doesn't apparently understand (ferocious).

[Marc]

Thanks for the compliment John B [].

After hurricane Katrina, I inspected several hundred homes in NOLA, most of which had flooded to the top of the roof. A rainbow of mold growths colored nearly every wall I saw for 5 months. Windows were all busted out so the airborne concentration wasn't noticeable. I had a respirator but never even tried it on. Never got sick, not even allergies.

I believe what the science is saying about mold...mostly...but I'm also happy that this woman had the tenacity to act as she did and save her daughter's life.

Marc

[Bain]

Thanks for the compliment John B [].

After hurricane Katrina, I inspected several hundred homes in NOLA, most of which had flooded to the top of the roof. A rainbow of mold growths colored nearly every wall I saw for 5 months. Windows were all busted out so the airborne concentration wasn't noticeable. I had a respirator but never even tried it on. Never got sick, not even allergies.

I believe what the science is saying about mold...mostly...but I'm also happy that this woman had the tenacity to act as she did and save her daughter's life.

Marc

Just busting your chops a little. And wondering if you're paying attention.

[Marc]

I don't miss your posts for anything.

Marc

[gtblum]

Get a room!

[MrsKramer]

Bane,

My suggestion to you to find answers about your reactions would be to join two chat groups, Sickbuildings@yahoogroups.com and IEQuality@yahoogroups.com. Sickbuildings is comprised of people who have been made ill. Alot of chit chat to sift thru, but well worth the time to understand the matter. IEQuality is made up of IAQ professionals. Its primarily building science knowledge, but they also have some superior knowledge of the current understanding of the health effects of contaminants in WDB.

Kurt & Jim,

I can't seem to work the format of this board too well. So I am going to post my response to you on a blog that I can work well and then link it here.

Kurt, you write, "There isn't an answer to that question [how much or how little mold makes one sick], which is why there's such confusion, and why it opens the door to the scammers and loons."

That is EXACTLY RIGHT. THAT is EXACTLY what I blew the whistle on.

Its BILLIONS in insurer fraud mass marketed into US public health and workers comp policy by scammers and loons who have professed to have scientifically proven that no amount of mold and toxins in WDB could ever make one sick.

Its a workers' comp insurer COST SHIFTING SCHEME onto taxpayers for the expense of WDB disabled workers. That LAWEEKLY article is work of fiction and is evidence of just how bad they want me discredited and silenced.

Back to you in (hopefully) about an hour. In the meantime, here are two videos for you:

HOW IT BECAME A FRAUD IN POLICY THAT IT WAS SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN MOLDY BUILDINGS DO NOT HARM:

http://blip.tv/laborvideo/sharon-kramer ... rs-5075373

3 Min Video ATTEMPT TO USE COURTS TO COERCE ME INTO SILENCE (fat chance!)

http://blip.tv/conflictedsciencemold/3- ... an-2073775

[kurt]

Redirection and hyperbole is hard to work with.

I'm sticking with those that seem to have studied this in cogent scientific manner. I spent a good part of the day following links, and there doesn't seem to be a 10th of the certainty of effect voiced by our visitor.

[MrsKramer]

Kurt, what evidence do you provide to refute the evidence of what I have shown you? I'm sorry. I must have missed it. "Redirection and hyperbole is hard to work with." Thank you for the acknowledgement of that fact. Back in a bit.

[kurt]

Much of your "evidence" is links to thousands of papers, notices of symposiums not yet started, chat rooms of folks, accusations of conspiracy, or other events I don't believe are involved with rational and cogent study of the phenomenon.

Jim's response to your misdirections was particularly accurate. You didn't respond to the one single thing he asked; you barraged him with loads of links, put words in his mouth, or otherwise dodged his question.

You're tenacious, able, and competent at talking all around a question, or redirecting the obvious intent of a statement and putting your spin on it, but seemingly incapable of providing specific pertinent answers to questions.

This is an emotional issue for you, so I'll cut some slack, but so far, I'm unconvinced of the severity of the issue you've devoted your life to.

[MrsKramer]

"This is an emotional issue for you, so I'll cut some slack, but so far, I'm unconvinced of the severity of the issue you've devoted your life to."

Kurt, I'm not blaming you, for this. I see this all the time. One's long time perceptions of what they believe to know, run deep. I don't write about the severity of this issue as the main topic. That is a by-product of what I write about and why so many would like me silenced.

I don't know if this has sunk in for you yet. I have presented you with evidence that has probably shaken the foundation of what you believe to know to be true of what is proven over this issue.

You asked me questions of what is the LD50. I answered with "I don't know". You then accused me of being a charlaton heritic for saying that.

Hello Kurt???? What I have been trying to tell you is that there is no LD50 for this situation. There is no evidence that moldy buildings don't harm. Its a scientific myth that has been mass marketed into policy by the use of extrapolations and hypotheticals applied to data taken from a single rodent study.

Like I said, I don't blame you for your viscious attacks on my character. Actually, its kind of fascinating to me because I can tell that you sincerely believe what you are writing. You are a professional in this issue which makes it all the more interesting to me of how deeply seeded bias is that it stops objectivety.

You keep trying to trap me to write of what IS science. I keep telling you I don't write of what IS science. I am not a scientist. What I write of is how a scientific fraud mass marketed its way into US public health policy. How the Hell would I know what compounds of mold are toxic and...whatever the rest of your question was that I tried to answer? (And then you accused me of being a liar when I answered the best I could.)

Its not you. What you are doing and your reaction is typical human behavior when one is faced with new information that flies in the face of what they thought they knew to be true.

Please do me one favor. Go back and read our posts. Then tell me which one of us is making unevidenced statements and emotional posts on this thread.

Back in a bit. (I need to link stuff and can't do it well on this board)

Warm Regards,

Sharon

[Marc]

Kurt, I'm not blaming you, for this. I see this all the time. One's long time perceptions of what they believe to know, run deep. I don't write about the severity of this issue as the main topic. That is a by-product of what I write about and why so many would like me silenced.

Now THAT is dead wrong. Kurt would be the first to acknowledge that his understanding of something was wrong if he were to become convinced of it by someone, anyone, even a new member like you.

This forum's about a search for the truth. You simply have not convinced everyone here and shouldn't expect to. I've been pounced on many times myself by the members here and it continues still. I look forward to it and expect it because they're being honest and I end up being smarter. Don't take it wrongly when the criticism of others isn't to your liking. Without honest criticism, this forum is dead.

Marc

[kurt]

"Vicious attacks on my character".............woof.

For a brief moment, I felt this was constructive. Not any more.

[MrsKramer]

"For a brief moment, I felt this was constructive. Not any more."

It is constructive. Out of adversity comes changes. Just hang with me here a bit. (Argh! This is a b**ch to write. Trying to do it briefly and suscintly with links)

[MrsKramer]

First of all, I want to thank you for having compassion that I do what I do because of my sickly daughter. That tells me that you all are good people trying to do the right thing.

But, I don't have a sickly daughter. My daughter does have cystic fibrosis. But she is 28 years old and is an editor for a reality TV show in Los Angeles. She runs, swims, plays soccer, snow boards and likes to ride dirt bikes. That was just part of the spin of LAWeekly to make you (and everyone else) think I am out here screaming mold is going to kill everyone, while knowing they were aiding a fraud to continue is US public health policy. Contrary to the LAWeekly, I couldn't keep a trailer in my driveway for my "sickly daughter" to stay in, even if I wanted to. My HOA would not allow it. I type this psot from my dark dank hovel of an office...as I look out at a lake in my view.

Still, I do appreciate your compassion. So, THIS is what I have been trying to tell you: http://wp.me/plYPz-38x

[gsgrl2000]

To everyone one who is participating in the bashing of anyone who is simply trying to get the truth out about toxic mold is doing all those who are suffering and dying from exposure a huge disservice! Please, I implore you to rethink your veiws on this topic of toxic mold exposure. It does make people very sick. The proof is in all those around the world who suffer daily. This back and forth bashing on this site and other's isn't solving this issue. It only makes things worse for everyone. Until we, as a people, begin to unite and empathize with those you may not understand, then we, as a people, will never heal this earth! And we will all suffer! Let go of your fear and embrace the truth! It will set you free!

Sincerely,

~DANA

[rkenney]

To everyone one who is participating in the bashing

I have been following this thread very closely for my own personal, impartial edification. I haven't yet read a post 'bashing' anybody.

It seems to me that the very act of accusing someone of 'bashing' anybody is just an emotional ploy of misdirection.

Adds nothing to the dialogue.

"Just the facts, maam."